HANSARD
SITTING CALENDAR
SEARCH
LIVE BROADCAST
Hansard Dynamic Subject Index
House of Assembly - Fifty-Second Parliament, Second Session (52-2)
2013-07-25 Daily Xml
Contents
Pdf Xml

STATUTES AMENDMENT (GAMBLING REFORM) BILL

Final Stages

The Legislative Council agreed to the bill with the amendments and suggested amendments indicated by the following schedule, to which amendments and suggested amendments the Legislative Council desires the concurrence of the House of Assembly:

No. 1. New clause, page 13, after line 36—After clause 24 insert:

24A—Insertion of Part 4 Division 1A

After Part 4 Division 1 insert:

Division 1A—Gambling only allowed in enclosed areas

27A—Gambling only allowed in enclosed areas

(1) It is a condition of the casino licence that gambling may only take place under the licence within a place or area that is enclosed as defined by the Tobacco Products Regulation Act 1997 (see section 4(3) and (4)).

(2) Section 16(1a) does not apply to the condition imposed under subsection (1).

No. 2. Clause 39, page 23, line 8 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(2)]—After 'must not' insert:

, on or after the prescribed day,

No. 3. Clause 39, page 23, lines 13 to 20 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(3) and (4)]—Delete subsections (3) and (4)

No. 4. Clause 39, page 23, line 21 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(5)]—After 'must not' insert:

, on or after the prescribed day,

No. 5. Clause 39, page 23, after line 26 [clause 39, inserted section 42B]—After subsection (6) insert:

(6a) It is a condition of the casino licence that the licensee must not permit the use of an audio device on any gaming machine if the use of the device is not intended primarily to assist a person with a hearing impairment.

No. 6. Clause 39, page 23, lines 34 to 40 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(9)]—Delete subsection (9) and substitute:

(9) In this section—

prescribed day means—

(a) 31 December 2018; or

(b) if, before 31 December 2018, the Governor prescribes a later date by regulation—on that later date.

No. 7. Clause 39, page 23, after line 40 [clause 39, inserted section 42B(9)]—After the definition of approved pre-commitment system insert:

audio device means an earphone, earpiece, headphone, headset or any other device to convert signals from a gaming machine to audible sound delivered to the ear of a person playing the machine to the exclusion of everyone else.

No. 8. New clause, page 26, after line 28—After clause 45 insert:

45A—Amendment of section 48—Accounts and audit

Section 48(2)(a)—delete 'in a form approved by the Authority' and substitute:

in accordance with generally accepted accounting standards

No. 9. Clause 60, page 32, lines 31 to 34 [clause 60(13) and (14)]—Delete subclauses (13) and (14)

No. 10. Clause 60, page 33, lines 2 to 12 [clause 60(16), inserted subsections (4) and (5)]—Delete inserted subsections (4) and (5)

No. 11. Clause 65, page 36, after line 8—Before subclause (1) insert:

(a1) Section 14(1)(ab)—delete 'on premises in respect of which someone else holds a gaming machine licence as agent of the holder of the gaming machine licence' and substitute:

—

(i) on the casino premises as agent of the holder of the casino licence; or

(ii) on premises in respect of which someone else holds a gaming machine licence as agent of the holder of the gaming machine licence;

No. 12. Clause 67, page 36, lines 28 to 37 [clause 67(2) and (3)]—Delete subclauses (2) and (3)

No. 13. Clause 69, page 37, lines 6 to 10—Leave out the clause

No. 14. New clause, page 37, after line 10—After clause 69 insert:

69A—Amendment of section 24A—Special club licence

(1) Section 24A(3)—after 'holding a gaming machine licence' insert 'or the casino premises'

(2) Section 24A(3)(a)—after 'licence' insert 'or the holder of the casino licence (as the case may require)'

(3) Section 24A(3)(b), (c) and (d)—after 'licence' wherever occurring insert 'or casino licence'

(4) Section 24A(3)(d)(i)—after 'Act' insert 'or the Casino Act 1997'

No. 15. Clause 70, page 37, lines 11 to 19—Leave out the clause

No. 16. Clause 72, page 37, after line 31 [clause 72, inserted section 27AAB]—

Section 27AAB—after its present contents (now to be designated as subsection (1)) insert:

(2) Despite any other provision of this Act, the gaming machine entitlements assigned by the Commissioner under subsection (1) are not transferrable under section 27B.

No. 17. Clause 92, page 45, lines 30 to 38—Leave out the clause

No. 18. Clause 96, page 46, lines 26 to 27 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(2)]—Delete 'in respect of a major gaming venue must not' and substitute: 'must not, on or after the prescribed day,'

No. 19. Clause 96, page 46, lines 31 to 39 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(3) and (4)]—Delete subsections (3) and (4)

No. 20. Clause 96, page 47, lines 1 to 2 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(5)]—Delete 'in respect of a major gaming venue must not' and substitute: 'must not, on or after the prescribed day,'

No. 21. Clause 96, page 47, lines 5 to 6 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(6)]—Delete 'in respect of a major gaming venue'

No. 22. Clause 96, page 47, lines 9 to 22 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(7) and (8)]—Delete subsections (7) and (8)

No. 23. Clause 96, page 47, after line 26 [clause 96, inserted section 53A]—After subsection (9) insert:

(9a) The holder of a gaming machine licence must not permit the use of an audio device on any gaming machine on the licensed premises if the use of the device is not intended primarily to assist a person with a hearing impairment.

Maximum penalty: $35,000.

No. 24. Clause 96, page 47, lines 38 to 42 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(12)]—

Definition of approved pre-commitment system—delete the definition

No. 25. Clause 96, page 47, after line 42 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(12)]—After the definition of approved pre-commitment system insert:

audio device means an earphone, earpiece, headphone, headset or any other device to convert signals from a gaming machine to audible sound delivered to the ear of a person playing the machine to the exclusion of everyone else;

No. 26. Clause 96, page 47, lines 43 to 44 [clause 96, inserted section 53A(12)]—Definition of prescribed day—delete the definition and substitute:

prescribed day means—

(a) 31 December 2018; or

(b) if, before 31 December 2018, the Governor prescribes a later date by regulation—on that later date.

No. 27. Clause 97, page 48, lines 1 to 18—Leave out the clause

No. 28. New clauses, page 49, after line 27—After clause 108 insert:

108B—Insertion of section 73D

After section 73C insert:

73D—Funding agreements

An agreement for, or relating to, the provision of money from a fund maintained under this Part must not prevent or limit the ability of the person or body receiving such money to make public comment about any aspect of the funding arrangement or the services provided by the person or body.

No. 29. Clause 111, page 50, lines 26 to 38—Leave out the clause

No. 30. Clause 112, page 51, lines 16 to 20 [clause 112(3)]—Delete subclause (3)

No. 31. Clause 116, page 52, lines 19 to 21 [clause 116(1)]—Delete subclause (1)

No. 32. Clause 119, page 53, line 19 [clause 119(6)]—Delete subclause (6) and substitute:

(6) Schedule 1, paragraph (nd)—delete paragraph (nd) and substitute:

(nd) that the licensee will not conduct the gaming operations on the licensed premises between the hours of 2 am and 8 am unless measures are in place that prevent machines designed to change a monetary note into coins (and located on the licensed premises) from being operated between the hours of 2 am and 8 am; and

No. 33. New clause, page 55, after line 6—After clause 126 insert:

126A—Amendment of section 11—Functions and powers of Authority

Section 11(1)—after paragraph (a) insert:

(ab) to publish advertisements directed at reducing the incidence of problem gambling and for preventing or minimising the harm caused by gambling; and

SCHEDULE OF THE SUGGESTED AMENDMENTS MADE BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL

No. 1. New clause, page 49, after line 27—After clause 108 insert:

108A—Amendment of section 73BA—Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund

(1) Section 73BA(4)—after 'gamblers' insert:

and towards any costs associated with the gambling advisory committee and gambling advisory officer established in accordance with this section

(2) Section 73BA—after subsection (4) insert:

(5) At least 85% of the money paid into the Fund must be applied towards programs for rehabilitating problem gamblers.

(6) The Minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act 1972 must establish an advisory committee (the gambling advisory committee) to provide advice to that Minister in relation to the performance of his or her functions under this section.

(7) The committee established under subsection (6) is to consist of 4 members appointed by the Minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act 1972 of whom—

(a) 2 must be from bodies representative of gaming machine licensees; and

(b) 2 must be representatives of charitable or social welfare organisations.

(8) Members of the gambling advisory committee will be appointed on terms and conditions determined by the appointing Minister.

(9) Subject to any direction of the appointing Minister, the procedure of the gambling advisory committee may be determined by the committee.

(10) The Minister responsible for the administration of the Family and Community Services Act 1972 must appoint a person (the gambling advisory officer) who, in the opinion of that Minister, is an appropriate representative of charitable or social welfare organisations to provide advice to the Minister or the Authority, either on his or her own initiative or at the request of the Minister or the Authority, on any other matter relating to the gambling industry.

(11) The gambling advisory officer must be paid remuneration of an amount determined by the appointing Minister.

No. 2 .New clauses, page 49, after line 27—After clause 108 insert:

108A—Amendment of section 73C—Community Development Fund

Section 73C(4)—delete '$500 000' and substitute: '$850,000'

Consideration in committee.

The CHAIR: Minister, as you would know we have 33 amendments and two suggested amendments, and I am in your hands as to whether you want to do it en bloc or whether you want to go through them individually. I am not sure what your preference is.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Obviously, my preference would be to do each one individually for a very long time, but I know that is not what everyone else wants us to do. So, in deference to my colleagues and in the team spirit, I would like to deal with them all at once, and I want to make a few remarks before I do that.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council's amendments 1 to 33 be agreed to.

Motion carried.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I move:

That the Legislative Council's suggested amendments be agreed to.

The CHAIR: It has been moved that they be agreed to, and you can now talk about them en bloc.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: I am going to be very brief, because I think already many hours and many words have been expended on this subject. Can I say first of all that it is a pleasure to have this matter now behind us, particularly for me and my staff, who have worked very hard in relation to this matter for some considerable time.

I want to be positive about this firstly and to say that there are some good things about this legislation which I think all of us can be happy about. It does mean that the opportunity for the Casino development is being provided. That is something which all parties have obviously thought was a good idea, and that clearly has happened.

Speaking for myself, I am disappointed that elements of the package that was originally sent to the other place which would have had the effect of advancing problem gambling measures have not been accepted by the other place. I am pleased also that at the meeting that I had this morning—an informal meeting with members from various groups within the parliament—there was, in effect, an acknowledgment about having no maximum bet at all, which is where the legislation found itself last night, just so people are clear. At the moment there is a $10 maximum bet, the government proposed a $5 maximum bet, some Independent members proposed a $1 maximum bet, and the opposition tried to keep at $10.

In any event, what happened at the end was that there was no maximum bet at all, and that concerned me a great deal. So I had a meeting with the member for Davenport representing the opposition, Ms Franks representing the Greens, Mr Brokenshire representing Family First and Ms Vincent representing herself, and there was a conversation about this. Ultimately it was clear that a majority of the cross-benchers in the other place would accept a $5 maximum bet, and we resolved this morning that the matter would be recommitted for the purposes of reinserting that $5 maximum bet into the process. Now, that has happened and I am pleased that has happened. I acknowledge the cooperation of the other members of the parliament who were involved in that process this morning and I thank them for that important bit of rectification that needed to occur.

I say again that in some respects I am disappointed that some of the measures that were in the original bill have not survived. Those measures would have ensured that there was going to be a greater number of buyers in the trading rounds. Obviously, the more buyers there are in the trading rounds, the greater the chance there are going to be sales of machines and, every time there is a sale of four machines, one of those disappears.

So, one of the consequences of the amendments that have been made in the other place is that there will be less momentum towards increasing sales of poker machines. The reduced momentum towards sales of poker machines will mean the speed at which machines are pulled out of the system to get us towards that target of 800 additional machines will slow, compared with what it would have been had the amendments not occurred.

I make that observation. I say that, personally, I regret that is the case, but I accept that the majority of those in the other place were not persuaded of that view, for whatever reason, and we are left with what we are left with. Nevertheless, there are some elements of this that do make positive steps in terms of problem gambling.

The first one I have already mentioned—the $5 maximum bet—which is an improvement from the present position. There are certain amendments proposed by the Hon. Mr Darley that will assist the community sector in addressing problem gambling. They will see the establishment of a Gambling Advisory Committee, which will be made up of members equally from the gaming industry and charitable and welfare organisations. They will advise on initiatives to be supported by the Gamblers Rehabilitation Fund.

Another amendment gives the Independent Gambling Authority the ability to publish advertisements directed at reducing the incidence of problem gambling. Again, that is a positive thing. Also, the Hon. Tammy Franks moved an amendment to increase the support for live music through the Community Development Fund from $0.5 million to $850,000, which is again something I think most would agree is a beneficial amendment.

As I said in my opening remarks, the legislation also now removes one of the potential impediments to the Casino being able to proceed with its much anticipated development nearby. Now that this impediment is about to be removed, and now that we have a development plan amendment in train to enable the Casino development to be facilitated by the planning process, I am very keen to see the Casino now move forward with that project, because all of the legal and practical impediments that might have made that project impossible or extremely problematic have been removed or are in the process of being removed.

That, of course, will be very good for the Riverbank. As my friend the Minister for Infrastructure is often heard to say, the project will look at creating 400 construction jobs and 1,000 ongoing hospitality jobs which, obviously, is good for South Australia, good for the city and good for the vibrant Riverbank precinct which we are all very keen to see develop.

So, there it is. The bill contains a number of things of which I think the whole parliament can be proud and which, I think, on balance, are good for the people of South Australia. As I said, again, I am disappointed that some of the responsible gambling measures which I hoped would have received the approval of the parliament were not dealt with favourably in the Legislative Council but, of course, parliament is like that. Sometimes they agree with us and sometimes they do not. On this occasion, they did not, so I think one has to just accept that that is the way it has gone.

As I said, the meeting I had with the cross-party groups this morning really concentrated on dealing with that one final issue which was sitting there: this problem about the maximum bet, and that was resolved. Accordingly, as I have already indicated, I will be accepting all of the amendments and all of the suggested amendments as per the material coming down from the other place. The member for Davenport has very skilfully conducted this matter, in some respects by remote control because we have achieved one of the more elegant manoeuvres in another place without him being physically present.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: Deus ex machina.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: There you are: deus ex machina.

The Hon. J.D. Hill: God out of the machine.

The Hon. J.R. RAU: Yes, there we are. Apparently that's very good. It's Latin and it's good. I did actually watch for a period of time the Hon. Rob Lucas—

An honourable member: Does he speak Latin?

The Hon. J.R. RAU: He doesn't speak Latin—well, maybe he does—but he managed things up there, but I could tell that the guiding force behind him was the member for Davenport because, when I actually approached him at some point to talk about things, he said, 'No, you need to speak to the member for Davenport.' So well done, member for Davenport. From your perspective, I think you have had a pretty good outcome.

From my perspective, it is not a bad outcome; it could have been better. However, I think from the South Australian perspective, overall, we are going to be better off than we were before this bill passed. We are going to have the opportunity for the Riverbank Precinct to have more private investment, more jobs, and we are going to see some improvement in the arrangements for problem gambling, not as much as I would have liked, but at least some.

So, overall, it is not a bad day's work for everybody. Obviously, from my point of view, it could have been better but, on balance, it is not a bad outcome. I again thank the member for Davenport and those other people there this morning for at least rectifying that other outstanding, glaring problem about the maximum bet. It was very good to have that resolved.

On another matter about which I am going to speak in a sort of coded fashion because I do not wish to re-enter the debate unless I am compelled to do so, people should have some sympathy for some of the people who work for me because, in the past, they did work for a former treasurer.

The Hon. I.F. EVANS: The opposition will be supporting the motion to accept the amendments from the upper house. We accept that the upper house has had its say and that everyone has won a bit and everyone has lost a bit. I want to place on the record my thanks to the ministerial staffer, Mr Green, who inherited the unfortunate job of dealing with the opposition and the government on this matter—as is the lot of ministerial advisers—particularly in the period where we inherited the bill and had to debate it all within about eight or nine days, which I think was a regrettable process for everyone.

The reality is that we were put in that position because the government fiddled on the negotiations with the Casino for well over two years, about the conditions it was going to put on the Casino to expand. At one stage we had the then treasurer—which was not the former treasurer that the Attorney may have just been referring to in his oblique remarks at the end of his comments, but a different former treasurer—out there saying that the Casino might actually lose exclusivity if it did not play ball with the government on negotiations.

What ended up happening was that the government, of course, got itself into a position where it was desperate for a re-election project. It needed to get the Casino project up in this period of time so that it could have a big announcement, and I suspect that it will be around the first or second week of February, ready for the campaign period. So we were forced to debate it in this chamber in a very short period of time, and I appreciate the efforts of ministerial staff. Can I put on record my sincere thanks to my staff, who put an extraordinary amount of effort into this piece of legislation.

The reason the Liberal Party took its view on certain elements of the bill was, primarily, a lot of the new regulation and changes to clubs and pubs was unmodelled and, at best, a good theory. At best, you could describe it as a good theory. The upper house has spoken in relation to the maximum bet issue. It is a $5 bet issue. My understanding is when that was introduced in Victoria the revenue dropped about 14 per cent. To this day, no-one has modelled what is going to be the impact on small clubs and small pubs if their revenues drop anywhere near that level.

When government members get up and parrot about their concern for jobs, whether it is at Holdens, the Casino, or whatever, I just make the point that any job lost in any sector is an issue. We took the view that, despite the passionate lobbying of various sectors, in fairness to those entities (some with big mortgages) that had adopted a certain business model, before we change that business model—whether it be on bet size, the requirement for technology, trading hours or the number of poker machines you may or may not be able to have—there should some modelling done to try to work out that impact. That was really the issue that drove a lot of the thinking behind the Liberal Party's position on the elements of the bill that we may have had difficulty with the government on.

We also take the view—I certainly, personally, take the view—that it is not a good social outcome to take low-profit low-turnover machines and put them into high-profit high-turnover areas which, by definition, if you look at the history of poker machines, tend to be low socioeconomic areas. I do not believe it is a good social outcome to put more poker machines into venues in low socioeconomic areas, and that is exactly what would have happened, in my view, under this legislation. The big winners would have been Coles and Woolworths and they would have gone into the low socioeconomic areas where they could maximise their profit.

While I accept, totally, that the welfare groups are genuine in their concern and their policies about trying to protect those who fall into the habit of gambling too much, problem gambling, I am just not convinced that it is a good social outcome to put more of these machines into bigger venues in low socioeconomic areas, and I think that is where they will end up because that is what the market dictates. If you look around the world, they tend to end up, for whatever reason, in low socioeconomic areas. That is why I fought against the 40 to 60 gaming machine issue. I came from that position.

In relation to the Casino, let me just say this. I think the government's line that somehow our amendments were going to put the Casino at risk was regrettable and shabby politics. Does anyone think for one minute that the Liberal Party did not sit down with the Casino, once the deal was announced, and work through the legislation to make sure that whatever we did we knew exactly what the impact was going to be on the Casino? If anyone read my second reading contribution and the committee stage of the bill, I made it crystal clear to the government that our amendments had been signed off by the Casino.

What the government was doing, running around on radio and in front of TV saying that the opposition's amendments put the Casino deal at risk was nothing more, in my view, than shabby politics. I did not really respond to it much in the media because I knew that the legislation would get through. The reason the legislation was always going to get through was very simply this: the government is desperate for an election announcement and the Casino is it. I was not born yesterday, nor was anyone else in this place. That is going to be the government's announcement at the election. So, the politics dictated that the legislation was always going to get through.

We know now today that, of course, the legislation has got through, and not one of our amendments put a trip wire in for the Casino. In fact, we went out at the time it was announced and said, 'At last, the government has worked out how it works. If you lower a tax on a business, as they have done with the Casino, guess what they do? They invest $300 or $350 million,' and as the Attorney just said, they create 1,000 new jobs.

The Liberal Party went out on the very day that Casino deal was announced and said, 'That's exactly what we have been talking about for 11 years.' So, for the government to run around in the media saying somehow we were putting up amendments that were going to cause the Casino some grief and the deal to fall apart was rubbish. The only way the Casino deal was not going to go ahead was if the government decided to pull the bill, having lost certain elements of the bill, and that was never ever going to happen. Even if the government had, we had legislation ready to go to put all those elements back into a separate bill and we would have been here right now debating that bill, and the government could have voted it down if they wanted to.

While we changed some elements about the agreement with the legislation applying to the Casino to make it tougher on them, we never put that development at risk, because we accept the fact that it is good for Adelaide to have an entertainment venue of that quality. In fact, if you go back to the early 2000s, it was John Olsen who talked about turning Adelaide around to face the Torrens and had money in the budget for a riverbank redevelopment. The first thing this government did when it came to power in 2002 was to not continue with that project. Here we are 11 years later and the re-election strategy is all about something they took money out of 11 years ago: a riverbank redevelopment.

I also thank the Casino representatives, the industry association representatives and the welfare groups, who gave me really good hearings at very short notice to get my head around what was a very complex piece of legislation. Even though I did not agree with everything everyone told me, I really do appreciate the fact that they spent so much time explaining how matters worked and the intricacies of how matters worked. The parliament has dealt with this matter. It was a complex matter. We look forward to the Casino deal going ahead and we will support the amendments as moved.

Motion carried.

PARLIAMENTARY BUSINESS
MEMBERS
GET INVOLVED
ABOUT PARLIAMENT
VISIT
LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL
HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY
CONTACT